Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 9077465" data-attributes="member: 19857">Maybe, but get a good enough lawyer and you can argue that you've made a copy though. I mean, you have taken it one pixel at a time but how is that that much different from how our TCP/IP technology breaks files down into packets and sends them over the internet? And it's not that much different from saying that if you photocopy a book and send it to someone one page at a time (or even one word at a time) you haven't actually made a copy of the book, which IANAL but I suspect that wouldn't stand up in court.Copyright is an agreement between the public and the artists who create copyrightable works. It's not a physical law, it's just a way of organizing our laws so that artists and publishers get paid for the work they do. So if someone has come up with &quot;one weird trick&quot; to get around the purpose of copyright, then we need to think about why we have copyright (to promote the creation of new works) and fix things to make sure our laws are still doing that.And the AI models out there NEED to have new novel works from human beings in order to continue to function. I've now read two papers that talk about &quot;model collapse&quot; where you feed work that an AI has created back into itself and very rapidly (within a few training cycles) the model degrades into garbage. It's true for both the language models and the visual ones. These models are incredibly fragile statistical creations and have a high dependency on distribution of pixels/words in the training sets they're given. If the companies that want to make/use these models want to keep them working into the future, it's in their best interest to not kill the golden goose which is human beings creating new works.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 9077465, member: 19857"] Maybe, but get a good enough lawyer and you can argue that you've made a copy though. I mean, you have taken it one pixel at a time but how is that that much different from how our TCP/IP technology breaks files down into packets and sends them over the internet? And it's not that much different from saying that if you photocopy a book and send it to someone one page at a time (or even one word at a time) you haven't actually made a copy of the book, which IANAL but I suspect that wouldn't stand up in court. Copyright is an agreement between the public and the artists who create copyrightable works. It's not a physical law, it's just a way of organizing our laws so that artists and publishers get paid for the work they do. So if someone has come up with "one weird trick" to get around the purpose of copyright, then we need to think about why we have copyright (to promote the creation of new works) and fix things to make sure our laws are still doing that. And the AI models out there NEED to have new novel works from human beings in order to continue to function. I've now read two papers that talk about "model collapse" where you feed work that an AI has created back into itself and very rapidly (within a few training cycles) the model degrades into garbage. It's true for both the language models and the visual ones. These models are incredibly fragile statistical creations and have a high dependency on distribution of pixels/words in the training sets they're given. If the companies that want to make/use these models want to keep them working into the future, it's in their best interest to not kill the golden goose which is human beings creating new works. [/QUOTE]

Verification